Download - nigel wright recruitment employer branding survey · nigel wright recruitment employer branding survey. ... nigel wright recruitment employer branding survey ... Job satisfaction

nigel wright recruitmentemployer branding survey

NIGEL WRIGHT RECRUITMENT 3

nigel wright recruitmentemployer branding survey

ABOUT NIGEL WRIGHT RECRUITMENT

Nigel Wright Recruitment is a leading name in the recruitment industry across Europe. Our consultants solvebusiness problems for clients every day through the provision of effective recruitment solutions. The businessspecialises in a range of industry sectors and professionally qualified disciplines, nationally and internationally. Theteams are able to handle executive and senior management roles, through to junior and entry level for permanent,temporary and contract roles. Nigel Wright Recruitment is structured around four key industry sectors; businesssupport and professional services, consumer, industrial and manufacturing, public and third sector.

CONTENTS

Executive summary

1. Introduction

2. Employer branding

3. Perceived organisational prestige and fit

4. Realistic job previews and met expectations

5. Psychological contract

6. Organisational commitment

7. Organisational identification

8. Perceptions of organisational support

9. Organisational-based self-esteem (OBSE)

10. Organisational trust and cynicism

11. Employer growth need strength (EGNS)

12. Leadership

13. Job satisfaction and life satisfaction; intentionto quit; perceived stress levels

14. Behaviour at work

Appendix 1: Characteristics of survey respondents

executive summary

4 NIGEL WRIGHT RECRUITMENT

Like many innovations in management practice rather at lot is claimed for ‘employer branding’. Many commentatorssuggest that employers should sell the prospect of employment within their organisation like they sell theirproducts: by creating a brand for their ‘employment proposition’. Organisations need to think: what are we sellingto potential recruits, and how can we get these people to join us?

The employer branding process makes use of marketing techniques to create powerful positive expectations amongpossible recruits of, for example, dynamic work projects, exciting career paths, supportive colleagues and inspiringleaders and managers, and a ‘fun’ culture. This is regularly portrayed as the cure for key organisational problemssuch as skill shortages, retention difficulties, effective talent management, etc. However many of these claims forthe benefits of employer branding are based on very little hard evidence.

Drawing on a survey of over 1,000 managers and professionals, this joint research project between Nigel WrightRecruitment and Durham University Business School provides a large data-set with which to understand in moredepth how employees respond to ‘employer brands’, and to evaluate the claims made for employer branding. Theresults presented here are not just how many people said what; there are statistically significant findings with majorimplications for how employers can manage their ‘employer brand’ and win employees’ loyalty.

The findings suggest that employer branding does indeed have some real positive benefits for organisations. Forexample, employer branding is significantly associated with increasing employees’ sense of self-esteem at work andtheir performance of ‘going the extra mile’ behaviours. However, there are also some concerns with the impact ofemployer branding on some employee behaviours and attitudes. For example there is evidence that employerbranding is positively associated with employees feeling rather let down by what the employer actually providesand hence a feeling of psychological contract violation.

We also compare the impact of the ‘employee-focused’ employer branding to that of the more generally focused‘perceived external prestige’ of the organisation (i.e. how outsiders in general judge the status and image of theorganisation). We assess whether organisations gain more by building their images and reputations in generalrather than focusing more narrowly on potential candidates via employer branding. Our findings on this suggestthat perceived external prestige is indeed also important for organisations, for example it is positively associatedwith employee engagement in general. The results suggest that this debate is not an either/or one. Building boththe employer brand and the general prestige of the organisation have positive but also in some respects differentbenefits for the organisation.

1. introduction

The labour market for high-quality managerial and professional employees is often described in hyper-competitiveterms: Watson Wyatt first coined the phrase, a ‘war for talent’. This trend appears to be intensifying. ‘Employerbranding’ has recently been seen as one effective recruitment and retention strategy for winning the ‘war’. Butwhat is employer branding? What does the brand consist of? Does it work? And, if it does, how?

Researchers from Durham University Business School conducted a study of managers and professionals registeredwith Nigel Wright Recruitment. An online survey examined views about their attitudes to their work, their jobs, andtheir organisation. A key emphasis of the survey was on what attracts scarce and highly talented managerial andprofessional employees to particular organisations.

Specifically, we asked them about their experiences of ‘employer branding’, and about attitudes toward work suchas their commitment to their employer; levels of cynicism and trust they have regarding their employer and,crucially, how they behave at work, particularly putting in extra unpaid effort on behalf of the employer – which canmake all the difference.

This report summarises the main findings of the survey. The appendices, page 26, provide further informationabout the survey sample. We mainly report the question responses in the form of tables. The sample comprises1008 usable responses from managers and professionals.


2. employer branding


There are various competing definitions of employer branding, but all have at their core creating the impression ofthe organisation as a ‘great place to work’ in the minds of current and perspective employees, as well as other keystakeholders (e.g. clients). In this study we operationalised the employer brand construct as consisting of five keydimensions or ‘values’ to the potential applicant:

1. Interest value – the extent to which an individual is attracted to an employer that provides an exciting workenvironment, has novel work practices, and makes use of its employees’ creativity.

2. Social value – assesses the extent to which an individual is attracted to an employer that provides a workingenvironment that is fun, happy, and provides a supportive team atmosphere.

3. Economic value – assesses the extent to which an individual is attracted to an employer that provides aboveaverage salary, an attractive overall compensation package, and job security and promotion opportunities.

4. Development value – assesses the extent to which an individual is attracted to an employer that providesrecognition, self-worth, and confidence coupled with career-enhancing experiences and a base for futureemployability.

5. Application value – assesses the extent to which the employer provides an opportunity for the employee toapply what they have leaned and to develop others in a customer orientated and humanitarian environment.

Table 1, page 7, reports the results of respondents’ perceptions of employer branding in their current organisation.We asked “How important were the following to you when considering a position at your current employer?” Themost important features, according to the average response, are at the top; the least important are at the bottom.

The results show that social value factors dominate people’s job-choice decisions: the top five most importantfeatures of an employer are all about relationships and feeling respected. 85% of respondents reported that havinga good relationship with colleagues was important to them; 81% said that having a good relation with their boss wasimportant. Economic values were also important: receiving an attractive overall compensation package was ratedhighly for importance by 79% of respondents in their choice of employer. But it came in 8th in the list of priorities.

Lowest in the branding ratings was the application value. Just 16% reported that being able to apply what they hadleaned at college was important to them in the consideration of their current employer. Working for a ‘humanitarian’organisation was unimportant to 39% of respondents.

The things that people rate highly in an employer brand are social factors: relationships at work, the prospect ofenjoying work, and work as a boost to self-esteem. Employers may want to think about tailoring their employerbrand toward these messages…


Having a good relationship with your colleague 2 3 4 7 22 41 22 5.62

Having a good relationship with your superiors 2 3 5 9 22 35 24 5.55

Feeling more self-confident as a result of working 2 3 3 7 21 40 23 5.54for the organisation

A fun working environment 2 4 3 7 20 37 26 5.53

Working for an organisation that both values and makes 3 3 3 8 21 39 24 5.53use of my creativity

A happy working environment 2 3 4 9 24 38 21 5.46

Working for an organisation that produces high 3 3 4 11 22 36 22 5.41quality goods or services

An attractive overall compensation package 2 4 4 11 22 33 24 5.38

An above average basic salary 2 4 3 15 25 31 20 5.32

Working in an exciting environment 2 2 3 7 23 38 25 5.20

Working for an organisation that I felt I could belong to 3 4 6 12 24 36 15 5.17

Feeling good about yourself as a result of working 3 4 7 15 24 30 18 5.14for the organisation

Working for an organisation in which I would be accepted 2 5 6 15 24 35 13 5.12

Working for an innovative employer with novel work 2 4 5 14 28 32 15 5.10practices and forward thinking

Gaining a career-enhancing experience 3 4 7 16 23 33 15 5.09

Working for an organisation that is customer orientated 4 5 8 15 20 31 18 5.03

Good promotion opportunities within the organisation 4 5 7 15 24 28 17 5.02

Working for an organisation that would provide me 4 6 9 14 21 26 19 4.99with job security

A springboard for future employment 2 5 8 20 32 25 10 4.90

Opportunity to teach others what I have learned 4 8 13 19 26 23 8 4.57

Working for an organisation would give me hands 5 8 12 20 23 23 9 4.52on inter-departmental experience

Opportunity to apply what I learned at college 14 15 17 22 16 13 5 3.68

Working for a humanitarian organisation 8 11 20 25 20 11 5 3.89– one that gives back to society

Veryunimportant

to me

Very important

to me

Mean score(out of 7)

table 1employer branding

3. perceived organisational prestige and fit


First was ‘perceived external prestige’: this assesses respondents’ beliefs about how outsiders judge the status andimage of their organisation. It can, therefore, be interpreted as reflecting the social value assigned by employees totheir employer’s identity and image in general. Table 2, page 9, reports what people thought about their employer’sperceived organisational prestige. The higher the mean for the positively-worded statements, the higher theperceived prestige; the lower the better for the negatively-worded statements.

Respondents generally reported high levels of perceived organisational prestige, with 42% agreeing that people intheir community thought highly of their organisation and 54% thought that their organisation was considered one ofthe best in its sector. Only 12% felt their employer had a poor reputation in the community; over half disagreed.

The second concept closely related to employer branding is ‘perceived organisational fit’. We asked respondentsabout the level of congruence, or ‘fit’, between their values and needs and those of their employer organisation.

Here the results of Table 3, page 9, show a more varied picture. 42% of respondents disagree that their organisationis a good overall match for them; only 30% agree that their values match the organisation’s values and culture.

This suggests that very few people have a powerful sense of affiliation with their employer. For as many as two infive employees they are not working for their ideal employer, in terms of aligned values.


People in my community think highly 5 9 12 32 23 14 5 4.20of this organisation

This organisation is considered one of 4 6 10 17 26 23 15 4.84the best in its sector

It is considered prestigious in my 8 16 15 26 18 13 5 3.90community to work for this organisation

People from other organisations look 17 28 17 21 8 6 3 3.06down at this organisation

When other organisations are recruiting 32 29 12 15 5 4 2 2.54new staff, they would not want staff from this organisation

This organisation does not have a good 26 30 13 20 5 5 2 2.72reputation in my community

Stronglydisagree

Mean score(out of 7)Disagree

Slightly disagree

Neither agree nordisagree

Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

The things that I value in life are very similar 13 18 16 25 16 9 3 3.52to the things that my organisation values

My personal values match my organisation's 14 15 17 23 16 11 3 3.57values and culture

My organisation's values and culture provide 13 17 16 24 17 11 3 3.59a good fit with the things that I value in life

My personality matches my organisation’s 14 17 15 25 17 10 3 3.55personality

My organisation fulfils my needs 13 18 15 18 22 11 3 3.64

My organisation is a good overall match 12 15 15 19 21 14 4 3.78for me

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

table 2perceived organisational prestige

table 3perceived organisational fit

4. realistic job previews and met expectations


Given, as we saw above, that certain aspects of the employer brand are important to respondents in consideringtheir current position and whether to move on, how accurately employees are able to evaluate branding campaignsis an important question.

In the survey we asked about the extent to which respondents were able to accurately evaluate key aspects of thepost to which they were hired prior to them joining. Here we are assessing whether respondents got a ‘realistic jobpreview’. Realistic job previews are a way by which organisations can help prospective employees get a balancedpicture of the positive and negative aspects of the work they will be doing, and of the general feel of the place (the‘organisational climate’), prior to the offer of a position. This is especially important in situations where people maynot have full information about the tasks and responsibilities of the job they are applying for.

We asked to what extent respondents knew what they were getting when they took up the post for which theywere initially hired in their current organisation. We then asked about the extent to which their expectations beforethey were hired matched up to their post hiring expectations. Tables 4a and 4b, page 11, have the results.

The results are equivocal. They suggest that employers have some way to go in providing realistic job previews topotential applicants. 35% of respondents disagreed that they knew the good and bad points of the job before beinghired; 38% disagreed that job content information was accurate. Almost half (48%) disagreed that they were toldabout the positive and negative aspects of the job before being employed.

Around a third (34%) of employees also felt that their job had not turned out to be what they expected it to be priorto being hired.

When we ran tests to see if offering realistic job previews are associated with employer branding efforts, we foundthat they were, significantly and positively. This means that most employers who engage in major branding effortsare also offering realistic job previews. They tend to go hand in hand. It appears those employers who spend effortin developing their brands are also effective at making potential employees aware of this. This makes sense: if yourcompany truly can offer an enticing job and career and a fulfilling work environment, you would want to tellprospective recruits all about it, even show it to them at the interview stage.

Firms with an employer brand they are proud of, and can back up, also make sure new recruits get to see it beforejoining (with a realistic job preview).


I knew what the good points and bad 7 11 17 21 20 16 8 4.15points of this job were when I was hired

I had a clear understanding of what this 3 9 12 18 28 22 8 4.59 job entailed before I accepted it

The information concerning the content 6 12 20 18 22 16 5 4.06(i.e. duties and responsibilities) of my job was accurate and complete

The information concerning the 3 7 9 15 28 28 10 4.82qualifications needed (i.e. skills, knowledge,experience) for my job was accurate and complete

I was told about all the positive and negative 11 18 19 20 16 12 5 3.66aspect of the job before being employed

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

The good points and bad points of the job 7 12 17 17 23 18 6 4.15were pretty much as I expected when I was hired

I did not know what to expect when I came 16 20 19 18 14 10 3 3.38to work for this organisation

My job has pretty much turned out to be 9 12 13 18 22 20 6 4.15what I expected it would be like

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

table 4arealistic job previews

table 4bmet expectations

5. psychological contracts


We asked respondents about the nature of their ‘psychological contracts’ with their organisations. Thepsychological contract is a simple idea: it’s about the set of expectations an employee has about what it is going tobe like working for an organisation, and what they expect the employer will deliver. But it’s not about what iswritten down in the legal employment contract; it’s about the other stuff – career progression, fair treatment,support, ethical policies…

If these expectations are fulfilled, employees have been shown to respond in kind: to work harder and better, to bemore loyal, to remain with the firm. But if the expectations are violated, employees can feel disillusioned, bitter andcynical, may reduce their effort levels and diligence, and may turn to the jobs pages to look for somewhere else towork. The reciprocity is simple to understand: getting the psychological contract right is vital.

Tables 5a and 5b, page 13, provide views on their expectations about employer obligations in relation to the variouselements that make up the psychological contract, and reports the extent to which they feel their employer fulfilsthose same obligations. The bigger the difference between these two scores (reported in the final column), thegreater the breach in the employee’s psychological contract – particularly if the sign is negative.

We found that respondents reported the greatest violations in the areas of training, pay based on performance, andthe balance between work and home life – in that order. At the same time, employers exceed expectations in someareas (e.g. promotion and high pay), though this is only a modest effect.

The most commonly violated employees’ expectations are in the area of training, getting rewarded for their ownperformance and work-life balance.

We wanted to know what effect employer branding has on psychological contract violation. It is significantlypositively associated. Here it seems that employer branding efforts over promises, resulting in unmet expectationson the part of the employee and thus feelings of psychological contract violation.

Interestingly, having realistic job previews is negatively associated with psychological contract violation. Knowingupfront what the job is going to be like means that your expectations are likely to be more accurate, and hence lesslikely to be confounded.

The suggestion here is that employer branding may inflate the expectations that employees have in terms of theirpsychological contract with the employer, whilst realistic job previews may act to dampen such expectations.


I think my employer is obliged to provide me with…

promotion and advancement 21 19 31 20 9 2.75

high pay 17 21 37 18 6 2.74

pay based on my current level of performance 4 4 12 44 36 4.04

competitive employment benefits 6 9 24 42 19 3.59

training 8 8 18 36 30 3.72

long-term job security 18 24 31 20 8 2.76

opportunities for career development 10 11 24 40 16 3.41

a satisfying job 8 10 28 35 19 3.47

sufficient authority and responsibility 4 6 18 45 28 3.87

the opportunity to have an appropriate balance 6 6 18 31 39 3.93between work and home life

Not obligated

at all

Veryobligated


My employer has fulfilled any obligations to provide me with…

promotion and advancement 18 18 33 22 9 2.75 + 0.1

high pay 13 17 34 27 9 2.74 + 0.28

pay based on my current level of performance 14 19 28 27 13 4.04 - 0.98

competitive employment benefits 14 17 30 28 10 3.59 - 0.54

training 23 22 24 20 11 3.72 - 0.98

long-term job security 23 18 30 20 8 2.76 - 0.04

opportunities for career development 22 21 27 21 8 3.41 - 0.65

a satisfying job 10 14 30 33 14 3.47 - 0.2

sufficient authority and responsibility 11 15 23 34 17 3.87 - 0.56

the opportunity to have an appropriate balance 13 16 26 27 18 3.93 - 0.73between work and home life

Not obligated

at allVery

obligated Mean score

(out of 5)

Discrepancybetween

perceived and fulfilment

table 5apsychological contract obligations

table 5bfulfillment of psychological contract obligations

6. organisational commitment


Employees’ commitment to the organisation is much sought after, and yet can be so elusive. One reason is thatcommitment can take many forms, or have different ‘bases’, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Tables 6aand 6b, page 15, have the results.

Staff may have ‘affective’ commitment, in the sense that they personally identify with the organisation. There is anemotional attachment there. Overall, our respondents have rather modest levels of affective commitment to theircurrent organisations. Only around a quarter of respondents (27%) say that they would be very happy to spend therest of their career with their organisation. Rather more people (38%) agree, however, that the organisation has agreat deal of personal meaning to them.

Staff may have a sense of commitment not because of any bond of loyalty to the firm, but simply because they feelthat the costs of leaving the organisation would be too great: this is so-called ‘continuance’ commitment.

There are two sub-dimensions of continuance commitment. Firstly, an individual can feel trapped in an organisationby the lack of alternative job/career opportunities. A sizeable minority of our survey – one in four – do feel trappedby a lack of alternatives: 26% say they have too few options to consider leaving. 39% feel that they could not leavetheir organisation even if they wanted to because of few available alternatives. The other dimension of continuancecommitment concerns the high personal costs involved in changing jobs. These can ‘anchor’ employees in theircurrent job, even if they might prefer to leave. More than one in five (21%) of people feel they have invested toomuch in their organisation to consider working elsewhere. In short, a significant number of staff feel tied to theorganisation for these reasons.

Interestingly, both employer branding and perceived organisational prestige are positively associated with affectiveorganisational commitment: the more that firms engage in employer branding the stronger the bond of commitmentemployees feel, and the higher the organisations’ perceived prestige the higher the commitment levels ofemployees. This makes sense: people who seek and then find a good job and a compatible organisation to work foractively engage with the organisation.

Employer branding is also positively associated with people reporting few alternatives, and the high-sacrificedimensions of continuance commitment. This makes sense: people who seek and then find a good job and acompatible organisation to work for may find alternatives wanting, and may have invested a significant part ofthemselves in their work.

Perceived organisational prestige is negatively associated with low alternatives. This also makes sense: employeesalready working for highly-rated organisations tend to regard rivals as inferior options.

The implications of these latter findings are that employer branding may act as a strong retention device with highlevels of both forms of continuance commitment, but employees may feel ‘trapped’ in the organisation.


Affective commitment

I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to 14 23 16 12 10 13 11 3.66this organisation

I really feel as if this organisation’s problems 14 15 13 19 18 15 6 3.80are my own

I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at 16 24 14 16 10 10 9 3.49my organisation

This organisation has a great deal of personal 14 17 14 18 18 13 7 3.77meaning for me

I would be very happy to spend the rest of 29 16 12 16 12 9 6 3.14my career in this organisation

I do not feel a strong sense of belonging 15 21 15 17 10 10 13 3.67to my organisation

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

Continuance commitment

Right now, staying with my organisation 16 16 11 14 13 17 13 3.96is a matter of necessity as much as desire

I believe that I have too few options to 27 22 10 16 9 9 8 3.16consider leaving this organisation

If I had not already put so much of myself 24 25 15 16 8 6 7 3.05into this organisation, I might consider working elsewhere

Too much of my life would be disrupted 32 27 10 8 8 10 6 2.87 if I decided I wanted to leave my organisation right now

It would be very hard for me to leave my 32 24 13 10 8 7 6 2.84organisation right now, even if I wanted to

One of the few negative consequences 20 20 11 12 12 14 13 3.70 of leaving this organisation would be the scarcity of available alternatives

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

table 6aorganisational commitment: affective

table 6borganisational commitment: continuance

7. organisational identification


A related concept to organisational commitment is that of organisational identification. Organisational identificationis a form of an individual’s attachment to an organisation. Organisational identification is the degree to which amember defines him/herself by the same attributes that he/she believes define the organisation. It is about whenan individual’s beliefs about an organisation become self-defining. When people identify with their employer, beingone of its employees is an important part of their identity. People think of themselves in terms of your membershipin the organisation; they see themselves bound up with its successes and failures.

The results in Table 7, below, report some fairly high levels of organisational identification among our respondents.Nearly three-quarters (72%) agree that they usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’ when talking about their employer,and nearly half (47%) agree that when someone criticizes their organisation it feels like a personal insult.

As we might expect, both employer branding and perceived organisational prestige are positively associated withorganisational identification: people who identify themselves with their employer tend to work in firms that haveengaged in employer branding, and are firms with high levels of prestige. The opposite may also be true:

When someone criticises my organisation, 12 14 11 17 21 17 9 4.09 it feels like a personal insult

I am very interested what others think about 6 9 9 18 22 24 11 4.56 my organisation

When I talk about my organisation, I usually 6 6 5 10 14 28 30 5.22 say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’

If a story in the media criticized my 14 15 12 14 18 18 9 4.00organisation, I would feel embarrassed

My organisation’s successes are my successes 10 10 12 20 21 21 10 4.24

When someone praises my organisation, 11 12 11 20 21 17 8 4.11 it feels like a personal compliment

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

table 7organisational identification

8. perceptions of organisational support

‘Perceived organisational support’ is a way of measuring employees’ perceptions of a favourable social exchangewith their employer: essentially it asks questions about the extent to which the organisation values their employees,looks out for their interests and well-being, and provides help when employees need it. Table 8, below, reports theresults.

Respondents generally do not feel very positive about the amount of support they receive from the organisation.Only slightly more than a quarter (28%) think of their employer as caring about their well-being; rather more, 40%,feel that their organisation cares about their opinions. More feel that help is available from the organisation if theyhave a problem (42%). Yet almost half (47%) feel the organisation would take advantage of them if given theopportunity.

Interestingly, employer branding has no significant relationship with perceived organisation support but perceivedorganisational prestige is significantly positively related. Employees working in well respected organisations by thecommunity respond to this respect as a sense of being supported by the organisation which has invested time andeffort in gaining its reputation.


My organisation really cares about my 19 17 16 21 16 9 3 3.34 well being

My organisation cares about my opinions 15 14 13 18 20 14 6 3.80

Help is available from my organisation 13 13 14 18 23 13 6 3.86 when I have a problem

My organisation is willing to help me 10 9 13 22 21 17 9 3.53 when I need a special favour

My organisation strongly considers 16 16 17 21 16 11 4 3.49 my goals and values

My organisation shows very little 17 21 17 14 12 10 9 4.91concern for me

My organisation would forgive an 5 5 8 16 23 30 14 4.44honest mistake on my part

If given the opportunity, my organisation 8 13 12 16 15 18 14 4.20would take advantage of me

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

table 8perceived organisational support

9. organisational-based self-esteem (OBSE)


There is a long-standing view in organisational behaviour research that an employee’s self-esteem in the workplace,formed around work and organisational experiences, plays a significant role in determining their motivation andeffecting work-related attitudes and behaviours. We asked respondents about the messages they picked up abouttheir standing in the organisational from the attitudes and behaviours of senior managers towards them.

The results in Table 9, below, show respondents generally reported high levels of ‘OBSE’ with around two-thirds(67%) agreeing that they were taken seriously. Around the same proportion of people (68%) felt that they wereseen as valuable.

Both employer branding and perceived organisational prestige were positively associated with strong feelings ofself-esteem realised as a consequence of one’s work.

Employees working for firms that have worked hard on their ‘employer brand’ tend to feel better about themselves,as a result of working for such a diligent employer. It feels good to work for an employer that delivers on itspromises of a ‘great place to work’.

I count around here 6 10 10 16 26 22 11 4.56

I am taken seriously around here 4 7 9 14 26 28 13 4.86

I am important around here 6 10 12 22 22 19 9 4.38

I am trusted around here 2 3 5 9 23 37 22 5.46

There is faith in me around here 2 4 6 13 24 34 17 5.23

I can make a difference around here 5 5 7 12 21 30 20 5.08

I am valuable around here 4 5 8 16 24 30 14 4.93

I am helpful around here 2 1 3 8 20 42 25 5.69

I am efficient around here 1 1 4 11 25 41 17 5.49

I am cooperative around here 1 1 3 8 20 41 27 5.74

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

Agree

table 9organisational-based self-esteem (OBSE)

10. organisational trust and cynicism

We asked respondents about their levels of cynicism, which is defined as an attitude resulting from a scepticalappraisal of the motives, actions, and values of the employing organisation. Organisational cynicism is thus anevaluative judgment stemming from an individual’s organisational experience. Cynicism levels were surprisingly lowoverall. Tables 10a and 10b, below, have the results.

We also asked how much trust people had in their employer, defined as having confident positive expectationsabout how the employer is likely to act in the future. These expectations cover the organisation’s benevolence (i.e.kind motives toward the respondent) and the organisation’s integrity (i.e. how honest and fair it is).

Employer branding was not significantly associated with either trust or cynicism but perceived organisationalprestige was negatively associated with organisational cynicism and positively with organisational trust.


I have confidence that the organisation will 17 15 17 17 18 13 4 3.56do what’s right when interacting with staff

I wonder about the real purpose behind 12 20 13 16 13 15 10 3.84this organisation’s decisions

There is no doubting this organisation's integrity 9 13 14 24 15 18 8 4.06

I’ve suspected this organisation’s public 13 23 13 19 14 11 8 3.60statements reflect more spin than reality

I suspect this organisation is deliberately 18 24 14 18 10 9 7 3.30evasive in things it says

I have misgivings whether this organisation 18 23 14 20 10 9 6 3.33is forthright regarding its actions

I believe my employer has high integrity 8 10 14 23 17 20 9 4.28

I can expect my employer to treat me in a 7 9 10 19 23 24 7 4.42consistent and predictable fashion

My employer is not always honest and truthful 14 24 13 17 12 11 9 3.58

In general, I believe my employer’s motives 5 8 9 21 21 27 10 4.66and intentions are good

I don’t think my employer treats me fairly 21 21 15 20 8 9 6 3.96

My employer is open and upfront with me 10 12 15 22 16 18 8 4.04

I’m not sure I fully trust my employer 15 19 11 16 13 14 12 3.82

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

table 10aorganisational cynicism

table 10borganisational trust

11. employee growth need strength (EGNS)

‘Employee growth need strength’ is like a need for achievement. It is a measure of an employee’s need to developpersonally through their job and work. Some people have it; others don’t. Employees with high growth needstrength tend to respond more positively to enriched jobs that have high levels of skill variety, task significance andautonomy.

Given that our respondents were predominantly professionals and middle-senior managers, it was not a surprise tosee them report very high levels of EGNS: fully 96% agreed that they personally would prefer jobs with stimulatingand challenging work, while almost as many (94%) said that they would prefer jobs that provided opportunities tolearn new things from their work.

Employer branding was positively associated with employee growth need strength. But perceived organisationalprestige had no effect. Table 11, below, has the results


Stimulating and challenging work 1 0 1 3 12 40 44 6.19

Opportunities to learn new things from my work 1 1 1 3 14 40 40 6.09

Chances to exercise independent thought and action 1 1 1 3 12 40 42 6.12

Opportunities to be creative and imaginative in my work 1 2 2 8 16 36 35 5.85

Opportunities for personal growth and development in my job 2 2 2 6 14 33 42 5.95

A sense of worthwhile accomplishment in my work 1 1 1 4 10 32 52 6.21

Would like having this only

a moderate amount or less

Would likehaving thisvery much


table 11need for achievement/ growth need strength


12. leadership

It is often said that people join an organisation, but they leave a leader; in other words, people’s experience of theirimmediate manager or their impressions of the senior management team are the factors that push them toward thejob pages.

So we asked employees about their attitudes to their immediate supervisor or boss, and their leadership style.Specifically, we asked a series of questions about their boss’ so-called transformational leadership capabilities.Transformational leadership is based on the notion that effective leaders are in a sense ‘charismatic’ individuals,who transform the basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of their ‘followers’ (i.e. the people who work for them) so thatthey are willing to perform beyond minimum levels for the organisation. They do so by providing a compellingvision for their work group to unite around and strive for; by ‘leading from the front’; by providing an inspirationalexample, and through effective use of praise, encouragement and intellectual stimulation. Table 12, below, reportsthe findings on leadership style for the bosses of our respondents.

Leaders are reported as being strongest in seeking new opportunities, with 60% agreeing that their managers dothis. Leaders also complement individuals for outstanding work on a regular basis. Respondents report their leadersas being weakest in leading by example (only 42% agree that their manager does this) and providing a good rolemodel to follow (50% agree).

Is always seeking new opportunities for the organisation 6 9 8 17 21 25 14 4.65

Leads by ‘doing’, rather than simply by ‘telling’ 13 16 12 14 18 18 10 4.01

Gets the group to work together for the same goal 11 14 11 17 20 18 9 4.13

Develops a team attitude and spirit among employees 15 13 12 16 18 17 9 3.94

Fosters collaboration among work groups 12 13 12 18 19 18 7 4.00

Gives me special recognition when my work is very good 11 10 13 16 21 19 10 4.24

Commends me when I do a better than average job 9 10 10 17 23 20 9 4.33

Paints an interesting picture of the future for our group 12 12 13 17 19 18 9 4.10

Inspires others with his/her plans for the future 17 15 14 18 14 15 6 3.68

Leads by example 17 14 11 17 17 18 7 3.85

Personally compliments me when I do outstanding work 11 10 11 16 20 21 13 4.38

Frequently does not acknowledge my good performance 16 24 15 14 11 12 9 3.49

Has a clear understanding of where we are going 11 10 12 18 22 19 9 4.22

Provides a good model for me to follow 21 10 12 18 22 19 9 3.63

Encourages employees to be ‘team players’ 13 12 13 15 20 20 8 4.09

Always gives me positive feedback when I perform well 12 12 12 18 19 19 9 4.15

Is able to get others committed to his/her dream 15 15 15 19 18 14 6 3.70

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

table 12leadership

13. job satisfaction and life satisfaction; intention to quit; perceived stress levels

Finally, we asked some questions about general attitudes, such as overall satisfaction with jobs, and with life as awhole.

We found only a modest level of job satisfaction amongst respondents. Most employees appear to like their jobs(Table 9, page 18). 57% say that they like working at their organisation; exactly half (50%) are satisfied with theirjob.

Respondents’ life satisfaction is rather higher, with more than three-quarters of our survey (78%) declaringthemselves satisfied with their lives as a whole. Nearly three-quarters (73%) agree that they lead a meaningful andfulfilling life.


All in all, I am satisfied with my job 9 13 12 16 22 22 6 4.18

In general, I like working here 7 9 10 16 24 25 8 4.49

In general, I don’t like my job 24 27 13 11 8 9 8 3.08

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

All in all, I am satisfied with my life as a whole 2 4 7 12 26 37 12 5.16

I am generally happy with my life 2 3 6 11 25 39 14 5.27

Although I have my ups and downs, 2 4 9 13 30 32 11 5.05in general I feel good about my life

I lead a meaningful and fulfilling life 1 3 6 16 29 31 13 5.15

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

I often think of quitting this job 19 15 9 13 13 15 16 3.96

There isn’t much to be gained by staying in this job 18 21 11 12 12 14 12 3.68

I expect to stay with this organization until I retire 54 14 8 11 6 4 4 2.27

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

table 13awork attitudes: job satisfaction

table 13bwork attitudes: life satisfaction

table 13cwork attitudes: quit intent


The level of quit intention, however, is also quite high. Forty-four percent of respondents agree that they oftenthink about quitting; more than a third (37%) feel that there is not much to be gained by staying in their current job.

Quit intent is predicted negatively by perceived organisational prestige and perceived organisational fit, whichmakes sense: people who work for highly-regarded firms where they feel they belong are unlikely to be looking fora new job. But, interestingly, our respondents’ intention to quit can be predicted positively by employer branding.In other words, more effort on employer branding seems to predict employees’ greater willingness to leave theiremployer. But this effect is not so keenly felt by prestigious employers.

These findings raise some further concerns with employer branding raising expectations that organisations cannotalways deliver and giving rise to increased stress levels amongst employees. What this means is that firms withstrong employer brands may be creating unrealistic expectations that they cannot deliver on and are, therefore, tosome extent creating their own employee turnover problems.

Additionally, stress is also positively associated with employer branding, so working for firms with a strongemployer brand is stressful. But people who work for organisations with high prestige report less stress, perhapsbecause that prestigious reputation comes from being an effective, well-run organisation with happy and healthstaff – or, intriguingly, very successful and popular organisations may not be pushing their staff that hard!

I feel a great deal of stress because of my job 23 22 17 11 11 11 4 3.16

Very few stressful things happen to me at work 1 1 3 6 17 40 33 5.90

My job is extremely stressful 1 0 1 4 15 45 34 6.01

I almost never feel stressed at work 1 2 2 7 14 42 32 5.85

Stronglydisagree


Slightly disagree


Slightly agree

AgreeStrongly

agree

table 13dwork attitudes: stress

14. behaviour at work

So far we have only looked at employees’ attitudes, and what they think about their employer. But we are alsointerested in how they behave at work, and what they do.

In our analysis of employee work behaviour, we identify two key dimensions of so-called ‘organisationalcitizenship’, whereby employees exhibit helpful behaviour which goes beyond the strict job definition. Here thereare behaviours focused on helping the organisation – which we label ‘organisational citizenship behaviour –organisation’ (or ‘OCB-O’) and those directed at individual colleagues – which we label ‘organisational citizenshipbehaviour – individual’ (or ‘OCB-I’). Table 14, page 25, shows the results.

The citizenship behaviour directed primarily at work colleagues is fairly extensive. For example, 26% of respondentsclaimed that they help new recruits to settle into the job at every available opportunity; 33% said that they take timeto listen to work colleagues problems or worries at every available opportunity.

Behaviours focusing specifically on improving efficiency and quality and reducing waste appear to be even morecommon, with only a tiny minority in each case saying that they never perform such behaviours.

We also identified an ‘in-role’ set of behaviours were employees perform the tasks expected of them for their job.Here we found high levels of in-role behaviour.

Further analysis suggests that employer branding is positively associated with all three of these forms of behaviourat work – having a strong employer brand that employees can believe in leads to employees to work harder - butperceived external prestige is only related to in-role behaviours.



How often do you do the following…?

OCB-I (extra effort on behalf of colleagues)

Help new people to settle into the job 2 5 16 52 26 3.96

Help others who have heavy workloads 2 6 19 55 19 3.85

Help others who have been absent 2 9 28 44 17 3.64

Take time to listen to work colleagues’ problems or worries 1 4 14 50 33 4.10

Help colleagues who have personal or domestic problems 3 12 23 39 24 3.71

Assist your manager with his or her work 3 7 18 48 24 3.82

OCB-O (extra effort on behalf of the employer)

Suggest ways to reduce waste 3 13 22 38 24 3.67

Suggest ways to improve quality 1 5 15 46 34 4.07

Make innovative suggestions to improve work procedures 1 5 16 43 37 4.10

Go to work even if you do not feel particularly well 1 4 8 34 54 4.37

In-role behaviour

Work overtime or extra hours when asked 2 2 5 30 62 4.48

Perform according to your supervisor’s requirements 0 2 8 46 43 4.31

Perform all the tasks that are expected of you 0 2 6 42 50 4.40

Put off until tomorrow things that should be done today 26 39 20 13 3 2.28

Adequately complete assigned duties 1 2 9 47 40 4.23

Meet formal performance requirements of the job 1 1 7 39 52 4.40

Fail to perform essential duties 76 19 3 2 1 1.33

Not at all

At everyavailable

opportunity


table 14behaviour at work

appendix 1. characteristics of survey respondents


Position Number of respondents

Top/board level management 90

Senior management (below board level) 295

Middle management 256

First line management/supervisor 105

Professional 223

Administration/support 31

Other 8

Contract Number of respondents

Permanent 877

Temporary 131

Highest level of education Number of respondents

NVQ 15

GCE/O 31

GCE/A 54

HND/C 107

Professional qualification 205

BA/BSc 302

Postgraduate 280

No formal qualification 8

Other 6

Gender Number of respondents

Male 726

Female 282

Marital status Number of respondents

Married or living as married 781

Single 227

Other 0

Sector Number of respondents

Private-sector manufacturing 527

Private-sector services 343

Public sector services 103

Other not for profit 29

Other 2

Modal year range

Age 40-49

Tenure in job Less than 2 years

Tenure in organisation Less than 2 years

NEWCASTLE

LLOYDS COURT

78 GREY STREET

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE

UNITED KINGDOM

NE1 6AF

T +44 (0)191 222 0770

F +44 (0)191 222 1786

LONDON

PALLADIA CENTRAL COURT

25 SOUTHAMPTON BUILDINGS

LONDON

WC2A 1AL

T +44 (0)207 405 3921

F +44 (0)207 681 1409

COPENHAGEN

LARSBJØRNSSTRÆDE 3

1454 KØBENHAVN K

DANMARK

T +45 8088 9418

F +45 6980 2874

www.nigelwright.com

EMPLOYER_BRANDING_SEP08

Download - nigel wright recruitment employer branding survey · nigel wright recruitment employer branding survey. ... nigel wright recruitment employer branding survey ... Job satisfaction

Top Related